The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

Hello all, I believe this discussion may have come up before, but I really would like Steven and friends to reconsider the name “Tank”. Overall, they have done a good job at naming the other classes and subclasses, but they ruin the immersion of the game by using the class name “tank”. Tank was a code name given to military vehicles being created in 1915. It has been a slang term for classes and archetypes in many video games given to the role that is used to absorb/mitigate or “tank” damage. Having a class name feels very uncharacteristic compared to the other class names. It’s like naming your cat “Cat”. It’s cute and punny, but is that what they really want for their game? What class do you play? Oh, I play a tank! Yea, but like what class? TANK!! *insert meme of a tank with a face on it... drooling*

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

SirChancelot

Artharion wrote: »

Guardian would be a good name.

Change tank to guardian and change the tank/tank to something else... Just like @Daggial said

It's just weird having a archetype called by it's role

PenguinPaladin

Warth wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Cosidering its an archtype name, and not a class name, who cares.

@PenguinPaladin its the first impression new players get so it matters quite a lot.

According to Intrepid, you'll also spend quite some time within the game before getting your secondary.

You will spend quite some time as a single archetype, sure.

Its the "first impression players get" so it maters quite a lot. To someone, you, i guess so sure.

I dont care in the least. I think the name of the archtype matters little. I think it is even such a small and meaningless change that in the overall aspect of the game it is meaningless.

At the very least i see it as so unimportant, that i would rather see the game become more complete than see someone working for intrepid having to constantly read through, debait, and stress over the communities responce to the name of an archtype.

But i mean, i guess other people have other priorities. Thats something i can acknowledge. But if ashes of creation fully released with "tank" as an archtype name, i dont see it that turning anyone away.

PenguinPaladin

SirChancelot wrote: »

Artharion wrote: »

Guardian would be a good name.

Change tank to guardian and change the tank/tank to something else...

It's just weird having a archetype called by it's role

What if we swapped tank and guardian completely?

Surely guardian/guardian can be called tank. As that is its role and focus.

Swaping them removes the "first impression argument"

daveywavey

CROW3 wrote: »

You're both busted.

It was JustVine, it wasn't me!!!

CROW3

daveywavey wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

You're both busted.

It was JustVine, it wasn't me!!!

Ludullu

I'm beginning to MORB Necro at all these posts lately.

Leave it at Tank. I, as a tank main, want to be a Tank.

PenguinPaladin

NiKr wrote: »

I'm beginning to MORB Necro at all these posts lately.

Leave it at Tank. I, as a tank main, want to be a Tank.

I also want nikr to be a tank.

daveywavey

CROW3 wrote: »

Asgerr

MybroViajero

Sathrago

Oh boy my favorite thread. Look folks, it's gonna come down to what "tank" means in this world of might and magic. Tank could be used just like Mage is used to give a generalized title to someone preforming a specific role or actions. They could easily say that Tank is the name that the people use in reference to a person able to distract and focus an enemies ire on themselves so that their teammates do not suffer mortal injury.

It's all about the word-play here, and if their world uses tank in this way, then you have to accept it regardless of how you feel. You could replace "tank" with any gibberish name like blarkenark and it would be the same. Fighter and Mage were created to describe the roles/generic actions they take and that is what tank will be.

Deal with it.

Corpier

Shoximity

Tank is only fine if they write something into the lore to justify it. If the historians of the AoC world use lingo like "and then he stalled long enough and "tanked" the enemies so that his party could sneak past and grab the crystal" then it makes sense to have a class named tank. If "tank" is never mentioned anywhere in quests, lore, random npc quotes, and in game descriptions... then the name "tank" breaks immersion (compared to the other class/archetype names). The problem is tanking is a gamer slang term that was created to easily identify a role. You don't have an archetype named "DPSer" because it sounds stupid. You could use the term "healer" because that is literally what they are doing. But, you wouldn't say I'm a "Damager Per Second" class/archetype. I think "Meat Shield" would be equal to "tank" in terms of archetpye name choice design.

Rando88

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?

It's like having a class named "DPS"

Sathrago

Also,

Rando88 wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?

It's like having a class named "DPS"

Summoners summon fighters fight tanks tank. Oh wow it perfectly fit.

Dolyem

Rando88

Sathrago wrote: »

Also,

Rando88 wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?

It's like having a class named "DPS"

Summoners summon fighters fight tanks tank. Oh wow it perfectly fit.

Summoners either use their summons for support, tank or dps though. It's like having a class called "support". Or "healer".

TheClimbTo1

Ryufu wrote: »

Cripsus wrote: »

Yea, the problem is that tank is used at all to begin with. The definition of “tank”is a military vehicle. We only know the slang meaning of the word as gamers because it’s what we use to define a specific role. They should use warrior or some other Base class name. Tank shouldn’t even be on the list.

I can see that. Warrior is pretty basic. Might be just to assist the players to better choose their class with a name like Tank. They know what it is from the big class table.

Language is a funny thing. Tank means more than a military vehicle at this point. We know mages in WoW give out conjured water, so they get called vending machines.

Definitely could be a quick fix for them, but there is probably some rationale behind their choice. I wonder what happens when you target someone, will it say Tank or say their actual chosen class of Guardian, Keeper, Nightshield... I suppose that could break your immersion. Not sure if it is a big deal to me.

The problem is, Tank is a bad name for the arch-type.

Most Tanks, especially 'modern tanks' have huge guns on them. What I'm saying is, most Tanks 1-Shot non-Tanks. Literally, 1 Shell... 1 Dead HMVVW. 1 Shell, 1 Dead Squad. They do huge damage, that can armor pierce, and can AoE... while still being 'Heavy Armor'. And they have no CC... they CC by Huge Damage. Yes, they can apply that Huge Damage to say... the wheels of a HMMVW, but the problem is the damage doesn't JUST hit the wheels, that HMMVW is now blown into the air and destroyed.

But the Arch-type isn't supposed to do damage, and is supposed to control the battlefield with CC. Nothing like a Tank at all.

It's always been a lazy term.

Spurius

I vote for renaming mage to "DPS"

Dolyem

Spurius wrote: »

I vote for renaming mage to "DPS"

I vote for renaming mages to houdini's

Child Item